elrond32 wrote:In chapter 7, sentence 10 in the review reads as follows: "Officia sapientiamque oculis animi possumus videre." I translated this as "We are able to see duties and wisdom with the eyes of the soul." Is this an example of an ablative of means (or instrument) construction?
Yes, this is an example of such an ablative. I would not hesitate to say that most ablatives without prepositions are ablative of means/instrument. The exceptions are that when words of time (e.g. tempus, annus, dies, hora
) are put into the ablative, they are almost surely in the ablative of time. When there is a passive verb it is likely that there is an ablative of agent. With a verb of separation, lacking/needing, depriving, or freeing, you can expect an ablative of separation. Certain verbs and constructions naturally take the ablative as part of the construction. In the absence of these very specific circumstances, you can usually rely on ablative of means or instrument. I would say oculis
here is instrument rather than means but it is not always clear (to me at least), and I don't think it matters much to know the difference.
Also, would there be any difference in the English translation if the Latin used "et" instead of the "-que" construction?
They are virtually interchangeable.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae